|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone using Codian MCU?
|
dmorgan
Member Posts: 1
From: Columbia, SC, USA
Since: Jul 2004
|
posted 22 July 2004 09:45 PM
  
Has anyone bought the Codian MCU yet? If so, I would like to know what you think of the unit versus Tandberg or Polycom MGC.IP: Logged |
metoojohnjr
Member Posts: 16
From: Houston, Tx
Since: Jan 2003
|
posted 23 July 2004 03:14 PM
The company I work for, who just signed up as a Codian reseller, purchased a Codian 4210 20 port IP MCU about 2 months ago and we are very pleased with it. I personally installed the unit which consisted of a console connection, hyperterminal and the provided console cable. Basically, I just had to input an IP Address, once this was done, I completed the installation in less than 5 minutes using the web interface. My company uses this MCU as an internet based MCU for our home office employees and we have had excellent luck and quality using it for our Sales calls. I typically log in to the web interface during the call and send text messages that everyone sees and I can force all sites to a particular video layout (there are 36 different lay-outs) if need be. My remote users all seem to prefer a different layout, which is no big deal on the Codian as they just use their far camera controls down button to switch lay-outs on the fly without impacting other sites... pretty cool if you ask me. The coolest thing about the unit, 30 Frames per second even if you are transcoding Video/Audio or Speed... I have lots of experience with Radvision and Accord and I have never seen 30 FPS with either one when transcoding... Really nice. and the price.... WOW! They did just announce new pricing, which was a little higher, but still a bargain.
IP: Logged |
CTO_BCS
Member Posts: 22
From: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Since: May 2003
|
posted 25 July 2004 02:00 PM
We have two FVC's, an MGC, and a Codian. The Codian is significantly better than the other two vendors quality and flexibility wise. We found the same thing as metoojohnjr, that its one of the few MCU's that can handle internet bridging. We have sessions with both internet and internal network users in the same conference, and you can't tell the difference. Try it with the other vendors and you are in pixelation hell. Its got a built in telephone bridge, so we've had internet users, private users, ISDN video users and telephone users( both through a Rad gateway) all on the same conference at the same time. Slick.Transcodes effortlessly ... in fact you aren't even aware that its going on. As well, users can switch CP modes on the fly all they want without affecting anyone else. We've yet to find a performance threshold. We've loaded it down with multiple high-speed sessions and it doesn't even feel it. The Codian also supports an open API (XML), so if you want to write some custom managment apps, its easy to do. Compare that to Polycom's obsession with proprietary-this, proprietary-that. H239 will be supported, as well as H264. Finally a VC vendor that adheres to standards. All in all, we are more than pleased, not only with its functionality (and they are still adding features!), but the price. Anybody want to buy an MGC? This message has been edited by CTO_BCS on 25 July 2004 IP: Logged |
joseaas
Member Posts: 7
From: Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Since: May 2003
|
posted 02 September 2004 05:46 PM
Hey all,Some Radvision docs tells that Codian Mcus does not provide any cascading solution, is that right? Regards José Souza IP: Logged |
metoojohnjr
Member Posts: 16
From: Houston, Tx
Since: Jan 2003
|
posted 02 September 2004 06:49 PM
Good news!!! I had a conference up between a Codian and (2)Accord MGC 100's!!! Cascading, as defined in H.243, is not supported, but... of course the Codian team thought of this and in my opinion improved upon it! When you set up your conference on the Codian (keep in mind, this is with no Gatekeeper, with a Gatekeeper, you could simply dial by e.164 or H.323 ID), you simply give the conference an alias. On the MGC, there is an option to select a Session ID under the alias... you simply put in the alias that corresponds to the right conference in the Codian and the call will take place with no issues and in fact the MGC will join directly to the designated conference!!! Hope this helps... With H.323, cascading is not an efficient way (especially over the internet) to connect two MCU's as it locks up the bandwidth, where as with the Codian method, the bandwidth is released and only used when a call is active. This lends it self to a distributed MCU Model that allows you to aggregate bandwidth at multiple locations and position MCU's strategically instead of in the same room!!! IP: Logged |
Sean Lessman
Sr. Member Posts: 810
From: Reston, VA USA
Since: Sep 2002
|
posted 02 September 2004 10:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CTO_BCS:
The Codian also supports an open API (XML), so if you want to write some custom managment apps, its easy to do. Compare that to Polycom's obsession with proprietary-this, proprietary-that. H239 will be supported, as well as H264. Finally a VC vendor that adheres to standards.
FYI, the TANDBERG MPS, MXP, Gatekeeper and TMS all support a XML API interface. You can write your own front end for any of our products. TANDBERG has always been very proud of our adherence to standards. TANDBERG has also provided a fully developed open API for every product we have brought to market. Sean IP: Logged |
Lulu
Member Posts: 22
From:
Since: Sep 2004
|
posted 03 September 2004 01:04 AM
Hi, To : CTO_BCS I also evaluate Polycom's MGC and I don't know whether the "tools" -- Click&View, PathNavigator, Conference Suite, WebCommander and MGC Manager are must-have or worth to buy options. I think Click&View/PathNavigator is must have but I am not sure if the bandwidth reservation is available or not without buying Conference Suite. Very confused. I have tried to connect the Codian's test MCU with 3 Polycom VS in different speed - 768K, 512K and 384K. Cools. IP: Logged |
CTO_BCS
Member Posts: 22
From: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Since: May 2003
|
posted 03 September 2004 08:15 AM
to Sean:Hadn't really looked at the Tandberg to be honest ..... if I brought in another piece of MCU technology for eval, my engineers would stage a revolt. In my experience, Tandberg does seem to be more interested in following standards than Polycom, so I do not doubt what you say. IP: Logged |
Sean Lessman
Sr. Member Posts: 810
From: Reston, VA USA
Since: Sep 2002
|
posted 03 September 2004 08:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CTO_BCS:
In my experience, Tandberg does seem to be more interested in following standards than Polycom, so I do not doubt what you say.
Just wanted to others to understand that many vendors adhere to standards. There are a few that stray from the path, but Codian is certainly not the first to follow standards. I am not in the position to speak on behalf of the other vendors in the market, but I can say TANDBERG has delayed functionalities many times waiting for a standard to be developed. A good example is the recent update to the ITU standards to accept MPEG 4 AAC-LD 20kHz audio for high quality audio. Up until now, there were two methods on the market, Polycoms Siren 14 (proprietary extension to G.722.1) at 14kHz and Sony's AAC which was standard under MPEG but signalling was not standardized for videoconferencing. Even though there was pressure from the market, TANDBERG waited for the appropriate standard and 'did it right' and it happens the standard method offers higher quality than both the proprietary methods. Sean IP: Logged |
Gary Miyakawa
Sr. Member Posts: 117
From: Roswell, Ga.
Since: Jun 2003
|
posted 03 September 2004 12:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Lessman:
FYI, the TANDBERG MPS, MXP, Gatekeeper and TMS all support a XML API interface. You can write your own front end for any of our products. TANDBERG has always been very proud of our adherence to standards.TANDBERG has also provided a fully developed open API for every product we have brought to market. Sean
Nice HyJack... Gary Miyakawa
IP: Logged |
MikeP
Sr. Member Posts: 107
From: Tracy, CA USA
Since: Jan 2001
|
posted 03 September 2004 05:25 PM
Yup. My own personal opinions follow. After an initial issue with the Codian not matching the network setting on the switch (both need to be "auto")...it has been running now for 4 days with multiple endpoints hitting it from around the world. The streaming aspect was what brought us to Codian (much less expensive than another streamer solution we looked at), but, the H.323 MCU capbilities are what clinched the deal. Transcoding, the ability to see the display you want, and they did some special stuff for us to work in our paradigm. Overall, this apears to be very capable. There seems to be an issue with QT. At times you need to change the transport to port 554 to get it working. When you switch back to "auto" it still works....arrrghh. Don't yet know where the problem lies... At the rate this is going we fully expect to put the Codian into full production shortly.... Mike
IP: Logged |
metoojohnjr
Member Posts: 16
From: Houston, Tx
Since: Jan 2003
|
posted 03 September 2004 07:07 PM
I have been testing the Codian IP VCR product and it is truly innovative and fresh. It actually joins conferences as an H.323 end-point and streams/archives whatever video lay-out it is seeing and all of the mixed audio! Since it has all of it's transcoding resources on board, 99% of your issues are resolved! You can generate streams with the audio and video alg.'s you want (not to mention the three user defined speeds that each stream in available at) no matter what the users are joining at, i.e.; you can transcode an H.261 conference to H.263 or H.264 (same with audio) to ensure compatibility with a certain viewer. You can also connect to the IP VCR From an end-point and access streams from their user interface with your Far End Camera Controls!!! and of course, you can access the stream from your choice of viewers. Very innovative and feature rich. This is truly Tivo for videoconferencing!IP: Logged |
Laurence
Member Posts: 1
From: East Lansing, MI 48824
Since: Jun 2005
|
posted 24 June 2005 02:38 PM
Looks like Codian have started to implement a get tough on pricing policy, which makes this quite an expensive product to own. Pity...IP: Logged |
braatjr
Member Posts: 10
From: West Chicago, IL
Since: Sep 2004
|
posted 24 June 2005 05:34 PM
Lawrence,
An expensive product to own? Surely you are joking! With all the "options" included and 4mb data supported I cannot fathom where you are coming from. For us out in the sales world it is a refreshing change to have a set floor price and really make it a value sale instead of a knockdown drag out low margin fight. No one is happy with that (except maybe the end user--although no one wants to sell to him after that).
PaulIP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 26 June 2005 11:13 AM
Codian Expensive? or with hight Operational Cost?Come on .. do you really know that Codian is the only, ONLY vendor in the VC industry that will let you buy the smaller system and upgrade it pay'ng only the difference? You could buy a 12 ports MCU now, the move to 20 or 30 and then to a Big chassis MSE8000 with HD blades. Your investement won't be lost.
IP: Logged |
GlenSykes
Sr. Member Posts: 86
From: UK
Since: Oct 2002
|
posted 26 June 2005 05:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Looks like Codian have started to implement a get tough on pricing policy, which makes this quite an expensive product to own. Pity...
What an absurd suggestion. Cost of ownership has nothing to do with the amount a vendor discounts their products by! It's a good thing Codian ensure their channels don't trash prices, it devalues the product and erodes valuable margin that resellers need in order to do a good job. Even if Codian equipment is sold at list price, 'pound for pound' it's still significantly a lower cost per port than any other MCU out there. This post stinks of someone bearing a grudge against Codian and trying to create mischief. I'd suggest you found something better to do with your time. This message has been edited by GlenSykes on 26 June 2005 IP: Logged |
Pipelats
Member Posts: 2
From: Moscow, Russia
Since: Jun 2005
|
posted 27 June 2005 04:55 AM
I tryed Codian couple of months ago and was very happy with it's functionality and price.
But only one thing looks crude: access policy, where simple user can change or even interrupt any active conference.Is it solved now? What is current access mechanism? IP: Logged |
kevinb
Sr. Member Posts: 78
From:
Since: Apr 2004
|
posted 27 June 2005 09:05 AM
Hi PipelatsI'm pleased to tell you that with the latest release of software there is now full User access control. You can set up users to have different levels of access so they can only control their own conferences and not anyone elses if necessary. If you would like more information please get in touch and I will create you an account on our demo MCU so you can have a look for yourself. Kevin IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 27 June 2005 09:10 AM
I actually can confirm that has been fixed sometime ago quote:
Originally posted by kevinb:
Hi PipelatsI'm pleased to tell you that with the latest release of software there is now full User access control. You can set up users to have different levels of access so they can only control their own conferences and not anyone elses if necessary. If you would like more information please get in touch and I will create you an account on our demo MCU so you can have a look for yourself. Kevin
IP: Logged |
Pipelats
Member Posts: 2
From: Moscow, Russia
Since: Jun 2005
|
posted 27 June 2005 09:41 AM
Kevin,
Thanks for information.
Do you mean release 1.2? If yes I'll just download it and try to install it on board (the MCU now is in our representative office). quote:
Originally posted by kevinb:
Hi PipelatsI'm pleased to tell you that with the latest release of software there is now full User access control. You can set up users to have different levels of access so they can only control their own conferences and not anyone elses if necessary. If you would like more information please get in touch and I will create you an account on our demo MCU so you can have a look for yourself. Kevin
IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 27 June 2005 09:44 AM
Pipelats, yes, grab it here
http://www.codian.com/downloads/codian_mcu_1.2(1.2).zip This version is adding support to 4 Megs per user with no port reduction. If you happen to have Sony G70 It is very interesting. Consider that sony will shortly (this summer) release the g50, stripped down version of the g70 but still supporting 4CIF@30fps@4Mbit/s quote:
Originally posted by Pipelats:
Kevin,
Thanks for information.
Do you mean release 1.2? If yes I'll just download it and try to install it on board (the MCU now is in our representative office).
IP: Logged |
MikeP
Sr. Member Posts: 107
From: Tracy, CA USA
Since: Jan 2001
|
posted 30 June 2005 07:23 PM
A bit off subject. We are now playing with our new VSX-8000. With H.239 turned on in the 8000, I cannot connect to the Codian...with H.239 turned off it works just fine.Just curious if anyone else has seen this? I have an ECS-500 GK running in Q.931 routed mode. Mike IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 01 July 2005 04:17 AM
H.239 and ECS -> use ECS 3.6.0.5 quote:
Originally posted by MikeP:
A bit off subject. We are now playing with our new VSX-8000. With H.239 turned on in the 8000, I cannot connect to the Codian...with H.239 turned off it works just fine.Just curious if anyone else has seen this? I have an ECS-500 GK running in Q.931 routed mode. Mike
IP: Logged |
MikeP
Sr. Member Posts: 107
From: Tracy, CA USA
Since: Jan 2001
|
posted 01 July 2005 11:25 AM
Thanks. I just heard back from Codian. It appears to be the VSX-8000 is slow with it's TSC (over 20 seconds) when H.239 is activated. I'll develop a separate post later today with what I have found on the VSX-8000 (good and bad). I may not have mentioned...it works fine with our ViaIP's both on services with H.239 and without. I have been reluctant to move up on ECS GK because the bandwidth restrictions and grouping on ver 3.5.2.5 does not work right. 3.2.2.2 does the restrictions we need, perfectly. I will look at 3.6.x though if it is out for production...hoping they fixed it. Thanks again, Mike IP: Logged |
mbtmike
Sr. Member Posts: 72
From: Winnipeg
Since: Feb 2004
|
posted 07 July 2005 02:26 PM
Trialed Both the Tandberg MPS, Polycom and the Radvision product ans when it came down to performance and bang for your buck Codian was what we selected.Support team is very responsive and features set amazing. IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 13 July 2005 06:41 AM
The only problem that I have is the Web interface for the Codian.. It does not update fast enough compared to the MGC manager. Does anyone else find this? Can another interface be created? I understand that is can be done with API's but does that give you full two way comunication with the created interface?IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 13 July 2005 06:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
The only problem that I have is the Web interface for the Codian.. It does not update fast enough compared to the MGC manager. Does anyone else find this? Can another interface be created? I understand that is can be done with API's but does that give you full two way comunication with the created interface?
the Web UI is not the strongest point but as far as I know a new one is planned. As you can see they focused on their revolutionary codec engine and HW design. better UI .. I am with you .. but will follow. you could consider having the MCU managed by the LifeSize control ... but never played with it .. and integration is not complete yet. IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 13 July 2005 06:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by czoli:
the Web UI is not the strongest point but as far as I know a new one is planned.As you can see they focused on their revolutionary codec engine and HW design. better UI .. I am with you .. but will follow. you could consider having the MCU managed by the LifeSize control ... but never played with it .. and integration is not complete yet.
Yeas but then you are still playing with a web interface! I have seen a beta of control and found it umm... quite slow to use. I do not know if they have fixed the speed yet. Also it is quite a round-a-bout route to control the MCU. Any news when the new gui will be released? IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 13 July 2005 06:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
Any news when the new gui will be released?
Regarding the speed I do not had serious problems but I understand your point of view. Talking about when the a new UI would be released It is an information I do not have. I suggest you to prepare a document with your requirements and discuss it with Codian. It would really help them doing it right for you too in first release. They are really friendly .... I thnk Kevin would reply to your Post too. IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 13 July 2005 08:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by czoli:
Regarding the speed I do not had serious problems but I understand your point of view.Talking about when the a new UI would be released It is an information I do not have. I suggest you to prepare a document with your requirements and discuss it with Codian. It would really help them doing it right for you too in first release. They are really friendly .... I thnk Kevin would reply to your Post too.
Yeah I actually know Kevin quite well..
Any idea how much it will cost for a C++ interface for a codian. i.e. how could we go about getting codian to get a programmer to build a GUI that fulfills our specific requirements.
IP: Logged |
MikeP
Sr. Member Posts: 107
From: Tracy, CA USA
Since: Jan 2001
|
posted 13 July 2005 12:26 PM
1. I would like to help with a web interface definition if that would be of interest.2. I have nothing but good things to say about Codian Support. We very recently uncovered a sticky issue and they have tackled it and in a few days will have a fix for it. Totally outstanding. Sure hope they stay this way....unfortunately as we have seen, buyouts and/or success can change things.... Mike IP: Logged |
kevinb
Sr. Member Posts: 78
From:
Since: Apr 2004
|
posted 13 July 2005 12:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
Any news when the new gui will be released?
James, I cannot discuss our plans in this area publically. I'll contact you directly to discuss the kind of features you would like to see. quote:
Originally posted by MikeP:
Sure hope they stay this way....
We certainly plan to! If you ever have any issues please make sure you get in touch! Kevin. IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 13 July 2005 12:51 PM
"I cannot discuss our plans in this area publically. I'll contact you directly to discuss the kind of features you would like to see."Could you give me a shout tomorrow? I tried to call you today but you were not there..
IP: Logged |
martins
Member Posts: 2
From: Vienna
Since: Jul 2005
|
posted 14 July 2005 06:55 AM
we also tested the codian mcu in combination with tandberg hw endpoints and polycom software endpoints. the device seems to be best in classdoes anyone know a good outlook integration feature which supports this codian mcu´s? regards Martin IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 14 July 2005 07:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by martins:
we also tested the codian mcu in combination with tandberg hw endpoints and polycom software endpoints. the device seems to be best in classdoes anyone know a good outlook integration feature which supports this codian mcu´s? regards Martin
You could try Lifesize control? Thats the only one I know of? James
IP: Logged |
martins
Member Posts: 2
From: Vienna
Since: Jul 2005
|
posted 14 July 2005 07:05 AM
and it supports the codian mcu also? quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
You could try Lifesize control? Thats the only one I know of?James
IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 14 July 2005 07:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by martins:
and it supports the codian mcu also?
I beleive so... IP: Logged |
czoli
Sr. Member Posts: 1469
From: italy
Since: May 2003
|
posted 15 July 2005 07:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
I beleive so...
if someone would contact LS and post the answer It would be great. IP: Logged |
jont
Sr. Member Posts: 167
From: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Since: Feb 2002
|
posted 18 July 2005 08:28 AM
HiRather than have someone contact Lifesize I thought I would post myself so you get it straight from the horses mouth so to speak. We will be supporting Codian 42xx series MCUs in the forthcoming v1.2 release (scheduled for Q3/4) this year. I cant give you more details yet but nearer the time I will post more info. Best Wishes Jon Tracey IP: Logged |
JamesR
Sr. Member Posts: 400
From: Uk
Since: Jun 2002
|
posted 18 July 2005 08:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jont:
HiRather than have someone contact Lifesize I thought I would post myself so you get it straight from the horses mouth so to speak. We will be supporting Codian 42xx series MCUs in the forthcoming v1.2 release (scheduled for Q3/4) this year. I cant give you more details yet but nearer the time I will post more info. Best Wishes Jon Tracey
Hi Jon, Do you guys have a Demo running on the web? IP: Logged |
WR Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
